State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Shri. Revansidha Shanmukhayya ... on 12 May, 2015
Daily Order BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI First Appeal No. A/04/239 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/01/2004 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/97/22 of District Solapur) 1. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD URBAN DIVISION, JUNI MILL COMPOUND, SOLAPUR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRI. REVANSIDHA SHANMUKHAYYA NANDIMATH BLOCK NO.16, VIKAS NAGAR, SOLAPUR ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Shashikant A. Kulkarni PRESIDING MEMBER Dhanraj Khamatkar Member For the Appellant: Adv. S. S. Kalekar For the Respondent: None ORDER ORDER Per - Hon'ble Mr. Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act).
[1] Original Opposite Party is the Appellant. Parties shall be referred in their original status for convenience.
Order dated 08/01/2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (The forum) in Consumer Complaint No.22 of 1997 is under challenge. (Impugned order) [2] By the impugned order, The forum directed the Opposite Party to cancel the electricity bills for the period from March-1991 to November-1997 and to rearrange it @ 20 units per month, adjust the amount paid and also pay compensation etc. [3] It is a quite an old proceedings of an appeal. This Commission has endeavored to take it out from sine-die list and to see that, all old cases are disposed of as early as possible. After taking out from sine-die list, notices, at the instance of the Commission, were sent to the parties. Appellant appeared through Adv. Mr. S. S. Kalekar and Respondent, not.
[4] On behalf of the Opposite Party, learned Adv. S. S. Kalekar vehemently submitted that, 'impugned order' suffers from material irregularity. There is also an illegality on the part of The forum to appreciate the evidence in the manner, required by law. Learned forum presumed certain facts not proved on record and has given undue importance to oral evidence of the Complainant.
[5] We had no occasion to hear anyone on behalf of the Complainant.
We have carefully perused the material placed on record.
Complainant was a domestic consumer. Opposite Party provided meter for electricity supply. As usual, there used to be billing for consumption of electric energy. From the year 1992 onwards, Complainant on record produced receipts to show that, he was regular in payment of electricity bills up to the month of January-1994. However, all these bills were on the basis of average consumption of 160 units per month. That was because the Opposite Party erroneously fed reading in computers instead of '0460' to '10460'.
It is also a contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant himself in connivance with the meter-reader or employee of the Opposite Party has played tricks whereas, as a 'consumer', the Complainant was using geyser, refrigerator, fans etc. As against this, the Complainant, on the basis of bills paid earlier for consumption of electricity, has on oral evidence stated that, on an average, there was a consumption of 15 units to 20 units per month.
Learned forum accepted the contention of the Complainant and decreed the claim accordingly.
[6] Party who asserts must prove. Assertion on the part of the Opposite Party relates to conduct of its employee. Its employee is alleged to had been in collusion with the Complainant. Learned advocate for the Opposite Party is unable to point-out as to what action the Opposite Party has taken against the said erring employee. Merely saying that, the Complainant colluded with the employee of the Opposite Party to take the average bills to suit his purpose will not be sufficient. On the other hand, learned Forum has derived a mean to locate the actual payment being made by the Complainant of the bills provided earlier or during the period for which the bills were in dispute. Those were on the basis of average consumption @ 160 units per month. This was not proved to be legal on the basis of subsequent installation of a new electricity meter or on the basis of any report from an expert from its own department, by the Opposite Party. The learned forum thus, was justified in accepting the version of the Complainant that he did not consume more than 20 units per month during the said period. We find no illegality in order passed by the learned Forum and there is no reason for us to interfere with the same.
Hence, the following:-
ORDER The appeal stands disposed of as dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 12th May, 2015 [ Shashikant A. Kulkarni] PRESIDING MEMBER [ Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member